Is artistic schooling falling behind?
At the end of January, the Ministry of Education published no fewer than four articles affecting continuing education and higher education, and the regulatory body, the Office for Students (OfS), held four consultations. Most of the content did not make the headlines, with the media focusing more on the topical issues surrounding home schooling. However, there is only bad news for courses in the creative industry.
In a series of measures affecting the pipeline of young, creative talent in the industry, the announcements included a change in top-up funding for those subject areas that are expensive to provide and that are considered strategically important. Art and design courses have been removed from this list and not because they are cheaper to teach. This inevitably makes it more difficult for universities and specialist institutions to offer them.
There are three major political drivers that threaten education for the creative industries. The first is that the Treasury Department is increasingly concerned that much of the money that students borrow for their higher education is not being paid back, and that those in the creative industries are conspicuously criminal.
The repayment plan starts when you reach a set salary threshold and ends all together after 25 years. Since people entering the creative industry often start out as freelancers or start their own businesses, they will not reach that threshold quickly. And of course, salaries in the creative industry are generally not high. (However, a recent study by NESTA confirms the tremendous job satisfaction – one of the few things the government is not interested in measuring.)
The Treasury Department is increasingly concerned that much of the money loaned to students is not paid back and that those in the creative industries are conspicuously criminal
The OfS was tasked with exacerbating this problem by developing measures of course success based on absolute measures of graduate salaries. Since the Institute for Fiscal Studies claims that completing a degree in the creative arts for men has a negative salary impact compared to not having a degree, there is a real risk that creative industry subjects will be put in the government basket of low value ' degrees.
The second big driver is the obsession with more Britons studying STEM subjects. Try to expand on this when STEAM fell on deaf ears and schools and students get the message. The English Baccalaureate, which students have been encouraged to study since 2010, does not contain a single creative subject. It is no coincidence that the number of high school students in creative areas has decreased. That they still exist in paid schools helps mitigate this impact, but further diminishes the low ethnic and socioeconomic diversity of art and design schools and industry. However, it wasn't long ago that art and design schools were a common choice for working-class students.
The third major driver is the increase in the quality and attractiveness of continuing education – especially higher technical and vocational education. That's welcome; The training was starved. The danger is that some voices suggest that this should be at the expense of university attendance when FE and HE offer different things. (There are even voices in the Ministry of Education asking whether creative subjects need to be honorary.) Of course we need both.
If one were being generous, one might wonder whether the different parts of government are joining together. How can you explain the separation?
This is all a long way from four years ago when it felt like policymakers woke up and announced the creative industries as a key element of the government's industrial strategy. Greg Clark MP, then Secretary of State for Economic Affairs, recognized them for what they are in the UK – world leaders.
If one were being generous, one might wonder whether the different parts of government are joining together. How else can we explain the separation between the economic importance of creative companies and the support of creative education? The most recent pre-pandemic estimate was that the creative industries contribute £ 11.7 billion to the economy's gross value added, which is greater than that of the automotive, aerospace, life science and oil and gas industries combined. It's also growing five times faster than the rest of the economy, according to DCMS numbers released in February 2020.
Its importance has only increased as a result of the pandemic and probably the Brexit. The UK needs to rebuild its economy and is not only a world leader and fast growing but also a supporter of innovation. For this reason, the economically admired countries such as China and Singapore are placing increasing emphasis on creativity in education. They want to add value by switching from “Made in” to “Designed In”. It must also be known somewhere in government that the creative sector is automation-resistant and that jobs that require creativity are more future-proof. Nesta's Creative Policy and Evidence Center has confirmed that employers recognize the value of creative education.
The danger is that the continuing incentives for schools and universities to offer creative thematic areas also have an impact on the cultural industry. Especially outside of the big cities, universities offer important cultural infrastructures and offers. This is mostly done on the basis of courses in these subject areas. In yet another political split, the government is advocating the notion of universities playing a civic role, which, with its tremendous contribution to fighting the pandemic, has undoubtedly proven correct. It also recognizes, sometimes reluctantly, the importance of the arts to our wellbeing.
The danger is that the continuing incentives for schools and universities to offer creative thematic areas also have an impact on the cultural industry
There is little doubt that the January political announcements represent further steps to undermine creative education and thus the pipeline of talent and UK competitiveness in creative sectors and innovation. Kingston University, of which I am Vice Chancellor, is home to one of the country's premier art and design schools. I intend to launch a campaign to highlight how the erosion of creative education is threatening our innovation edge as a nation.
In the months ahead, I will be working with companies to improve evidence of the creative skills needed to advance the future of UK plc. I will also show various government departments how they undermine industrial strategy and its “Better Regrowth” mantra. The next deadline is the comprehensive spending review in the fall, so there's no time to lose.
Professor Steven Spier is Vice Chancellor of Kingston University and Director and Spokesperson for the University Alliance on Creative Industries. He was previously Dean of the Kingston School of Art and has worked in higher education in Belfast, Glasgow and Hamburg